Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD
 emulated by HHH --- Deception
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 13:56:05 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4e45da7d557282c5549883d62f379c46c3653677@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <eca21d905b57bb0b98172c573890b5c8cda91da8@i2pn2.org>
 <vakisq$302rl$3@dont-email.me> <vamjse$3d6eb$1@dont-email.me>
 <van2ni$3f6c0$1@dont-email.me> <vap9r5$3t411$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapv4l$3vumk$4@dont-email.me> <vashj9$grso$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav3iq$10jsm$4@dont-email.me> <vavc3b$11uqn$2@dont-email.me>
 <vavcf8$129qh$1@dont-email.me> <vavdv4$11uqn$6@dont-email.me>
 <vavfjq$12m8t$3@dont-email.me> <vb1gqf$1f566$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4fd0$2s0uc$2@dont-email.me>
 <b393150191c6d78fc3033efb7c2fb993914ab53e@i2pn2.org>
 <vb9kao$3r9la$1@dont-email.me> <vbbvoc$9s9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbccr8$bdtb$5@dont-email.me> <vbeifo$om7b$5@dont-email.me>
 <vbep6r$punj$3@dont-email.me> <vbh9c8$1aru4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhm9k$1c7u5$13@dont-email.me> <vbjqhu$1sj3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbkai8$1u1js$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 17:56:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1287398"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vbkai8$1u1js$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7837
Lines: 128

On 9/8/24 9:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/8/2024 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-07 14:00:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/7/2024 5:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 06.sep.2024 om 13:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 9/6/2024 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 05.sep.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONS
>>>>>>> AND THE OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER ONE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the outer one, when aborting after two cycles , misses the 
>>>>>> behaviour of the inner one in the next cycle, where the inner one 
>>>>>> would see the 'special condition', abort, return to DDD, which 
>>>>>> would halt as well.
>>>>>> That HHH misses the last part of the behaviour of the program, 
>>>>>> does not change the fact that this is the behaviour that was coded 
>>>>>> in the program
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we have an infinite chain of people each waiting for
>>>>>>> the next one down the line to do something then that thing
>>>>>>> is never done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The infinite chain exists only in your dream. In fact there are 
>>>>>> only two recursions, so never more that a chain of three HHH in 
>>>>>> the simulation.
>>>>>> HHH is incorrect in assuming the there is an infinite chain, but 
>>>>>> this incorrect assumption makes that it aborts and halts. This 
>>>>>> applies both to the simulating and the simulated HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>> The way it is encoded now there are only two recursions.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we encode it as you suggest the outermost directly
>>>>> executed HHH would wait for the first emulated HHH which
>>>>> would wait for the second which would wait for third
>>>>> on and on...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is olcott's problem with English?
>>>> If one way is incorrect, he thinks that it suggests that another way 
>>>> must be correct.
>>>> I never suggested to change HHH, because there is *no* correct way 
>>>> to do it. Every HHH that simulates itself is incorrect. No matter 
>>>> what clever code it includes.
>>>
>>> You must be a brain dead moron.
>>> As long as HHH emulates the sequence of instructions
>>> it was provided then HHH is correct even if it catches
>>> your computer on fire.
>>
>> That is right. The error only occurs when HHH no longer emulates the
>> sequence of instructions it was provided.
>>
> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>      stop running unless aborted then
> 
>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 
> The above refers to determining that *its input D*

Which BY DEFINITION uses THIS H, the one that uses this criteria to 
INCORRECTLY about its simulation.

> "specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations"

But it doesn't, since the condition is not satisfied. The CORRECT 
SIMULATION of this input does halt, H can not do that simulation, since 
it *WILL* choose to abort its simulation, since that *IS* the code you 
have proposed for it.

> When people change this to a *non-input D* they are
> trying to get away with deception.

But the non-input is the D that calls the H that didn't abort, since it 
calls THIS H, the one that eventually aborted. You arjust caught in the 
fact that you are lying to yourself, but you are too stupid to see that 
blantent lie.

> 
> The pathological relationship where DDD calls its
> own emulator DOES CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR OF DDD.
> 

But that is just your LYING FALSE CLAIM that you have admitted is such 
because you can not show the actual instruction that was CORRECTLY 
emulated that began that difference. Your claims able the call 
instruction acting differently just shows your utter pathologically 
ignorant understanding of what you are talking about.

Note, just calling HHH is NOT a "pathological" relationship by most 
normal definitions, as it is still possible to make an HHH that could 
get the right answer, you are just too stupid to understand that method, 
and have just rejected it out of stupidity. The D that does the opposite 
could be called "pathological" since it makes an input that it is 
IMPOSSIBLE to build a decider that can decide on an input built from it 
by that template, but that doesn't make the problem invalid, or the 
corret answer about the DEFINED behavior of that input. Such an input 
*WILL* either diffinitively Halt, or never Halt, depending on the 
algorithm in the decider it is built on, so there *IS* a correct answer 
to the question, just not one that that particular decider happens to give.

A lot of prospective deciders give wrong answers to the question they 
might have been aimed out. No problem with the fact that a given machine 
that was claimed to be a foo-decider for miscomputing the fooness of its 
input, that just makes it not a correct foo-decider.

> Simply ignoring that this pathological relationship
> DOES CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR OF DDD is ridiculously stupid.
> 

Nope, Thinking thing that have been PROVEN incorrect, like the exact 
emulation of the exact same deterministic instructions with the exact 
same inputs can possible create divergent results.

You are just stuck with the problem that you belive your own lies to 
yourself more than an honest evaluation of the world, which has made you 
clinically insane.

Sorry, but that *IS* the facts, and your inability to handle them just 
proves your funny-mental inability to handle the truth. You have made 
yourself into a pathological liar because your seem to have a blind spot 
for seeing the truth.